We can't discuss literally everything in one comment, there is such a thing as context boundary. You say I was dogmatic, immoral. Okay I say you take concepts from different contexts and mix them together, to refute things I didn't write. And you don't actually provide good explanations for what you claim.
It's a possible solution, but it's unproven of course.And how is 10^300 other universes a solution?
You are totally mixing together human-made dichotomies with naturally occuring pairs like matter-antimatter.What is the guiding mechanism that determined the subject/object relationship? Was it discovered or planned? Did it just so happen to work that way or was it made to work that way? Duality was the first truth discovered; it had to be because everything is based on that. True/false, on/off, plus/minus. Why would it be any other way?
From there it was an evolutionary process of what worked, worked and what didn't, fell apart and ceased existence. Maybe there were competing trialities or quadalities that didn't compete as well. Maybe instead of charge being divided into 2, there was plus, minus, and something else and that just didn't work.
So once duality was the dominant form, it became the environment that selected what came next: matter/antimatter, positive/negative, up/down.
Matter that didn't attract other matter did not work; it died out and ceased existence. Matter that had gravity worked and became dominant.
This is one of the biggest philosophical mistakes. Fundamentally speaking there are no dichotomies like subject/object or true/false. Back in the day they "discovered" this absolute "truth", and Western philosophy got based on it, which is why it's breaking down now. There is absolutely no evidence for a subject/object division in physics.
Natural dualism is also half true because things do seem to come in pairs in physics. Does it apply to everything in our universe? Maybe so, but I doubt it's proven yet. Let's say it's that way, for the sake of argument.
But you are taking massive leaps of faith. Why do things come in pairs in our universe in the first place? That seems to arbitrary, maybe that too is already one of infinitely many possibilities. Maybe in other universes it does come in 3s or 4s or not a whole number. Or is a chaotic mixture of completely random things.
To me, natural pairs of 2 seems to be a minimalistic construct that's all. So it already might be an end product of a large, possibly infinite "iteration".
So you take the already unexplained "duality" and then use backwards thinking from there. "Duality" becomes an actor that makes selections. You give it a power it can't have. What does that even mean?
What does it mean "what worked"? Who or what decides what works? Works for whom and in what sense? Why does our current universe "work" and other universes don't? You aren't actually explaining anything. Or you use what is to be explained, as explanation.
Why would the physical world care about what should become dominant?
Wait.. but that IS a multiverse to me. Then what are you arguing against?Who knows how many iterations it took just to get that far. Maybe the universe formed and fell apart 10^300 times before the first atom was formed. Who could say?
I was telling Greta the other day that life probably evolved with no idea how to reproduce. Well how would it know how to? So there must have been oodles of lifeforms popping into existence in a short time until, by chance, one of them figured out how to reproduce and then it became dominant due to that advantage.
Maybe the first lifeforms were immortal, and so death had to be invented for evolution to take place. That lead here. But again you are using the end result to explain the end result. The question is, WHY this and only this end result out of the infinite possibilities?Why are we programmed to die? Well probably because the first lifeforms that could reproduce also didn't die, so they ate all their food and went extinct. Now we need a lifeform that manages to figure out, by chance, how to reproduce and also have a finite lifespan in order to be in harmony with their finite environment.
Okay first, you don't seem to understand that the MWI multiverse only describes all the possible outcomes of OUR universe.But by your reasoning and MWI, the organisms that didn't survive went to live in other universes. And in those universes, the organisms that didn't survive went to live in yet other universes. The triality that didn't happen here, happened in another universe. The matter that doesn't have gravity must exist in another universe.
The MWI multiverse isn't the same thing as what's usually meant by multiverse. What's usually meant refers to universes that are different from ours, in a sense "outside" it.
Second, the MWI comes in variations. Some people literally break up the universal wavefunction into separate, branching universes, as I said I think that's crazy. I don't see any separation inside the universal wavefunction, so I think we see the sum of it from our point of view.
Third, you can't "go" from one universe to another as far as I know. And surviving or not surviving per se has nothing to do with anything, those are also just part of all the possible states. Yes in our universe AND our version of this universe , everything is right for self-aware huamns. And in the vast majority of the possible outcomes of our universe, probably there is no life. And in almost all other universes, probably there is no life. And in very rare cases there may be more advanced life than here.
Again, what is this magic or hidden mechanism you keep referring to that decides what should and shouldn't exist?Why have it that way instead of things just ceasing to exist?
If I flip a coin and it lands heads, why does it have to land tails in another universe? Why can't that outcome simply not manifest?